SHOUKATH ALI KHAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDICARB LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subject matter of the instant writ petition arises under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act" for the sake of brevity). Writ petitioner, namely Shoukath Ali Khan is hereinafter referred to as "workman" for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. Respondent No.1, viz., the Managing Director, Indicarb Limited, No.63, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosur, Tamil Nadu is hereinafter referred to as "management company" and respondent No.2, viz., the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem is hereinafter referred to as "said Labour Court", all for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

(2.) The workman herein was appointed as helper in the management company way back in 1982. Somewhere in 1995, it is the case of workman that he made a representation to the management company that he is suffering from Asthma and is therefore, not able to work in powder section of the management company. The workman requested for transfer from the powder section to avoid dust pollution. This request was admittedly acceded to and the workman was transferred to personnel and administrative department on 10.05.1996. However, it is the say of the workman that thereafter, he was transferred to hard metal plant with effect from 01.4.1997 without assigning any reason. It is the further case of the workman that due to transfer to the hard metal plant of the management company, his health was affected and was forced to take leave. In such circumstances, the management company has issued a show cause notice dated 04.9.1997 and thereafter, terminated the services of the workman on 01.10.1997.

(3.) Alleging that the show cause notice is based on false allegations and that his termination is bad, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute and the same took shape as I.D.No.754 of 1998 on the file of the said Labour Court. After a detailed enquiry/trial, the said Labour Court in and by an order dated 24.04.2003 dismissed the workman's petition. Aggrieved, workman has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 24.04.2003 made in I.D.No.754 of 1998 on the file of the said Labour Court, which is hereinafter referred to as "impugned order" for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.